Showdown in West Palm Beach

Joseph Bentley
IDH 4007
Spring 2002
Machonis/Graham

The history of South Florida resembles, in many ways, the
classic Hollywood westerns that are so familiar to us all. South Florida had
its freedom and fortune seeking pioneers and assorted eccentric characters.
Clashes between the indigenous people and the pioneers were common. And, like
the Old West in the movies, South Florida was an exciting but hard to tame land.
But unlike Hollywood's depiction of the Old West, the good guys in Florida didn't
always wear white hats and the bad guys didn't always wear black. It is much
more difficult to discern who the bad guys are and who the good guys are in
South Florida history. This holds true to this day.

South Florida history is full of good guys who, when investigated,
turn out to be rather shady characters. And in the other direction, there were
many apparently bad guys, who in retrospect may not have been so bad after all.
Was Ed Brewer the Ed Brewer of Across the Everglades or was he more like the
Ed Brewer in Killing Mr. Watson? Was Mr. Watson a totally bad character? Did
Henry Flagler create or destroy South Florida with his East Coast Railroad?
In order to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in South
Florida history, it is important to think about how attitudes and perceptions
of what constitutes good and what constitutes bad have changed. It has been
mentioned a few times in class that the slogan "Save the Everglades"
means today something quite different from what it meant historically. Eighty
years ago "Save the Everglades" was a call to drain, develop and pave
over what people saw as a watery wasteland. Those who created plans to do so
were, at the time, perceived to be the good guys. Currently, the good guys who
fight to "Save the Everglades" are the conservationists, environmentalists
and concerned citizens who are on the front lines in the battle against development
of the unique wetland. Given the complexity of South Florida history, the people
who created it and the change in values and perceptions, it is quite difficult
indeed to figure out just who should be wearing the white hats and who should
be wearing the black hats.

This dilemma particularly struck me throughout our visit
to the South Florida Water Management District's headquarters. Certainly none
of the representatives were wearing white or black hats and I kept trying to
determine whether the District is a friend or foe in terms of Everglades conservation.
One of the things that immediately caught my eye was their motto, "South
Florida Water Management District: Protector of the Everglades." My cynical
side wondered how the District could refer to itself as "protector of the
Everglades" when the agency exists as the current product of a long history
of attempts to drain and destroy the entire ecosystem. I became even more skeptical
when the spokesperson handed out the slickly designed and packaged folders of
information on the District and its activities. The information packets filled
with key words such as "balancing", "improving" and "managing"
seemed almost like propaganda. The district spokesperson with her sweet nature
seemed like the perfect spokesperson. Would she wear a white hat or a black
hat? As I saw more of the facility's inner workings I felt a real sadness at
the reality of how incredibly altered the contemporary Everglades system is.
We have read about the alteration and even discussed it in class several times,
but when standing at Pay-Hay-Okee or the Shark Valley observation tower the
reality seems not so significant. Employing the Hollywood analogy again, it's
a bit like seeing a behind-the-scenes show about a favorite movie it takes
some of the magic away. My sadness evolved into anger at the damage we have
done to the Everglades. I felt angry that the District saw itself as a necessary
protector of the Everglades.

After wrestling with these feelings for a few days I have
found a middle ground. I am still sad and angry when I think about our history
of "playing God" with the Everglades. I still feel skeptical towards
the District, though I just can't imagine that the nice spokesperson would be
wearing a black hat. But, I have to accept some responsibility myself. I choose
to live in South Florida. I use water from the Everglades. I don't want to lose
my livelihood because of a flood. I benefit from the work that the District
has done and yet I feel a sense of animosity towards it. My conclusion is this:
The Everglades has been severely altered in really fundamental ways. It's too
late to change the fact. Millions of people now live in South Florida and depend
on the water resources of the area. I do believe that the Nutrient Removal Project
and Everglades Restoration Project that the District is working on are impressive
and commendable. It's hard to assign a white or black hat to the District. It's
too complex for that. But isn't everything that involves the Everglades complex?